Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2011 9:12:59 GMT -6
NOTICE OF FILING
Litz Cjantscheir, Prime Minister of Talossa and Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar, has filed complaint against the Chancery alleging inorganic actions on the part of the Secretary of State in granting a writ of citizenship termination for S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir.
The body of the complaint as filed with the Clerk of Courts is as follows:
PETITION
I, Litz Cjantscheir, Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar do hereby seek a ruling and judgement of this most Honourable Court, ruling that the Termination of the Citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir issued under the Seal of the Chancery on Thursday 8th September 2011 is Inorganic and seek that the citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir and all rights and entitlements of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir, be restored to good and proper standing. Furthermore I seek a injunction against the Chancery and its agents from terminating the citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir until a written public declaration is issued by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir in accordance with in Article XVIII: Section 9 is made.
I present my case as follows:
The Law:
The Organic Law states:
Article XVIII:
Section 9. Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery.
The Facts:
On the 7th September 2011, S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir or person(s) claiming to be S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir posted the following:
I, being of sound mind and body do humbly denounce my citizenship to The Kingdom of Talossa. This i, me of me, do declare on the 12th day of the month of Loki, Year of the Turrtlesnake.
On the 8th September 2011, the Secretary of State, issued the following Writ of Termination of Citizenship:
Pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 9 of Talossan Organic Law, the citizenship of the one formerly known as Réxhifjörd Taglheir is hereby revoked.
Done by my hand in the name of King John and under his Royal Seal this 8th day of September in the year of salvation 2011, in the 5th year of the reign of our gracious sovereign King John, and of the independence of Talossa the 32nd.
Iustì Canun, Secretar d’Estat
The Case:
It is my argument that the post made by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir does not constitute a valid, organic and legal declaration of renunciation of citizenship by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir as it does not meet the exact requirements as set out in Article XVIII, Section 9 of Talossan Organic Law.
Namely;
1) Nowhere in the Original Declaration is the Word “renunciation” mentioned, therefore, the statement cannot form a “Declaration of Renunciation” if the author, in this case, S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir has not made it explicitly clear that he wishes to renounce his citizenship. In this case S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir said he denounces his citizenship, which has a entirely different legal meaning from renouncing. Denouncing and renouncing of one’s citizenship are two entirely different things and the above quoted Article and section make it clear that only a clear “Declaration of Renunciation” is acceptable, which this statement is not.
2) While it may or may not of been the intention of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir to renounce his citizenship, one cannot legally interrupt his post as a renunciation of citizenship, unless S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir has made it crystal clear in his message that is his intention, be it with a goodbye message or clear use of the word “renounce”. It was wholly a assumption by the Chancery that the author, S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir, meant renunciation, without awaiting in writing confirmation that this was the exact intention of the author. The declaration does not form a “Declaration of Renunciation” so the Chancery was not legally obliged to act quickly. It should of allowed S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir the benefit of the doubt and awaited clear confirmation from S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir that his intention was to renounce his citizenship and sought a properly written statement to that effect. While contact may of been attempted by the Chancery or its agents, I do not believe that the Chancery had to authority to issue a termination of citizenship without a clear declaration of renunciation and such should of been received before the chancery acted.
3) The widening of the scope of The Chancery of words accepted to mean “renunciation” sets a deadly precedent and is Inorganic. Any citizen who posts, “I denounce my citizenship in Talossa” or “I denounce the Kingdom of Talossa”, could have their citizenships terminated despite these posts being posts of protest that “Declaration of Renunciation”, it could also be reasonably assumed that other words such as “despise, loath, hate, regret etc...” could be viewed as words which mean “to renounce”. The Organic Law makes it clear, the Declaration must be a “Declaration of Renunciation”, not a Declaration of Denouncement, of Despising, or Regret. While the law must allow for a variety of words to form a Declaration of Renunciation, one must ensure that only clearly worded declarations which are verified, by the Chancery as the author’s wishes are accepted. This declaration does not meet this standard, its meaning is ambiguous, vague and it cannot be, without any reasonable doubt, be interrupted as declaration of renunciation of citizenship that satisfies the above mentioned Article and Section.
4) The “declaration” does not state a clear date from which the “declaration” is to take effect. Since the date appears from my research, to be a wholly “fictional date” without any reference by the author to a actual calendar date, this declaration is invalid since it does not contain a verifiable and universally agreeable date on which to take effect. The Court must ask itself what is “the 12th day of the month of Loki, Year of the Turrtlesnake”, for without reference to the Gregorian calendar or a clear piece of research, this date could be a point in 2 months, ten years or some point in the past, thus rendering the statement invalid and the Chancery incapable of acting upon it.
2) Termination of citizenship should be considered a serious event by the Chancery, while the Chancery is under no obligation to verify who posted the post, it is under the obligation to verify the intent of a statement if the statement is not crystal clear about its actions and await for this clarification before acting upon such statement. The statement posted was unclear, its actions and effects were vague and ambiguous, yet the Chancery took the assumption that the author meant to renounce his citizenship and took steps to terminate the citizenship of the author without first, ensuring beyond all doubt this was the intention of the statement and he was fully aware of the consequences of such statement. Denounce and Renounce are two separate things and it was outside the powers granted to the Chancery, both Organically and Statutorily, to presume there was a link between these two words, without clear instructions from the author that it wasn’t his intention to denounce his citizenship, but to renounce it. The Chancery acted inorganically by issuing a writ of termination without firstly receiving these facts.
It is therefore my argument that this declaration does not meet the conditions of Article XVIII, Section 9 of Talossan Organic Law and the Court as the custodian and guardian of citizenship rights and the Organic Law, must ensure that it is the clear intention of the citizen to revoke his citizenship and not the intention to simply denounce or protest his citizenship, for some reason. This case shows that a ambiguous post should not be interpreted as a renunciation without clarification and clear instructions being sought on the author’s true intentions. I therefore, urge the Honourable Justice of this Court to rule this termination of citizenship as InOrganic and restore the citizenship of of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir and all rights and entitlements of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir, be restored to good and proper standing and ask that a injunction against the Chancery and its agents from terminating the citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir be granted until a written public declaration is issued by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir in accordance with in Article XVIII: Section 9 is made.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me,
Litz Cjantscheir
Plaintiff
The Magistracy finds that PM Cjantscheir, acting on behalf of His Majesty's government, has sufficient standing to bring this petition as it challenges the organicity of a government function.
Further, the Magistracy is satisfied that, as an inferior court of the realm, it holds adequate jurisdiction to rule in the matter.
This case having been assigned on 9/17/2011 by the Clerk of Courts, I hereby give Sir Iusti Canun, Secretary of State, or his delegated representative until October 21, 2011 to make his opening statement due to the General Election having commenced.
Furthermore, I will permit those who are not party to the case to fileamicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, provided copies be provided to the Clerk of Courts for appropriate record keeping. I will not correspond with any individual outside of this courtroom regarding this case, all correspondence to the court shall be made through the Clerk. These briefs shall express relevant legal opinion only and may or may not be considered in the final ruling.
Capt. T.M. Asmourescu
Magistrate
Litz Cjantscheir, Prime Minister of Talossa and Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar, has filed complaint against the Chancery alleging inorganic actions on the part of the Secretary of State in granting a writ of citizenship termination for S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir.
The body of the complaint as filed with the Clerk of Courts is as follows:
PETITION
I, Litz Cjantscheir, Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar do hereby seek a ruling and judgement of this most Honourable Court, ruling that the Termination of the Citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir issued under the Seal of the Chancery on Thursday 8th September 2011 is Inorganic and seek that the citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir and all rights and entitlements of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir, be restored to good and proper standing. Furthermore I seek a injunction against the Chancery and its agents from terminating the citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir until a written public declaration is issued by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir in accordance with in Article XVIII: Section 9 is made.
I present my case as follows:
The Law:
The Organic Law states:
Article XVIII:
Section 9. Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery.
The Facts:
On the 7th September 2011, S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir or person(s) claiming to be S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir posted the following:
I, being of sound mind and body do humbly denounce my citizenship to The Kingdom of Talossa. This i, me of me, do declare on the 12th day of the month of Loki, Year of the Turrtlesnake.
On the 8th September 2011, the Secretary of State, issued the following Writ of Termination of Citizenship:
Pursuant to Article XVIII, Section 9 of Talossan Organic Law, the citizenship of the one formerly known as Réxhifjörd Taglheir is hereby revoked.
Done by my hand in the name of King John and under his Royal Seal this 8th day of September in the year of salvation 2011, in the 5th year of the reign of our gracious sovereign King John, and of the independence of Talossa the 32nd.
Iustì Canun, Secretar d’Estat
The Case:
It is my argument that the post made by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir does not constitute a valid, organic and legal declaration of renunciation of citizenship by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir as it does not meet the exact requirements as set out in Article XVIII, Section 9 of Talossan Organic Law.
Namely;
1) Nowhere in the Original Declaration is the Word “renunciation” mentioned, therefore, the statement cannot form a “Declaration of Renunciation” if the author, in this case, S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir has not made it explicitly clear that he wishes to renounce his citizenship. In this case S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir said he denounces his citizenship, which has a entirely different legal meaning from renouncing. Denouncing and renouncing of one’s citizenship are two entirely different things and the above quoted Article and section make it clear that only a clear “Declaration of Renunciation” is acceptable, which this statement is not.
2) While it may or may not of been the intention of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir to renounce his citizenship, one cannot legally interrupt his post as a renunciation of citizenship, unless S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir has made it crystal clear in his message that is his intention, be it with a goodbye message or clear use of the word “renounce”. It was wholly a assumption by the Chancery that the author, S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir, meant renunciation, without awaiting in writing confirmation that this was the exact intention of the author. The declaration does not form a “Declaration of Renunciation” so the Chancery was not legally obliged to act quickly. It should of allowed S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir the benefit of the doubt and awaited clear confirmation from S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir that his intention was to renounce his citizenship and sought a properly written statement to that effect. While contact may of been attempted by the Chancery or its agents, I do not believe that the Chancery had to authority to issue a termination of citizenship without a clear declaration of renunciation and such should of been received before the chancery acted.
3) The widening of the scope of The Chancery of words accepted to mean “renunciation” sets a deadly precedent and is Inorganic. Any citizen who posts, “I denounce my citizenship in Talossa” or “I denounce the Kingdom of Talossa”, could have their citizenships terminated despite these posts being posts of protest that “Declaration of Renunciation”, it could also be reasonably assumed that other words such as “despise, loath, hate, regret etc...” could be viewed as words which mean “to renounce”. The Organic Law makes it clear, the Declaration must be a “Declaration of Renunciation”, not a Declaration of Denouncement, of Despising, or Regret. While the law must allow for a variety of words to form a Declaration of Renunciation, one must ensure that only clearly worded declarations which are verified, by the Chancery as the author’s wishes are accepted. This declaration does not meet this standard, its meaning is ambiguous, vague and it cannot be, without any reasonable doubt, be interrupted as declaration of renunciation of citizenship that satisfies the above mentioned Article and Section.
4) The “declaration” does not state a clear date from which the “declaration” is to take effect. Since the date appears from my research, to be a wholly “fictional date” without any reference by the author to a actual calendar date, this declaration is invalid since it does not contain a verifiable and universally agreeable date on which to take effect. The Court must ask itself what is “the 12th day of the month of Loki, Year of the Turrtlesnake”, for without reference to the Gregorian calendar or a clear piece of research, this date could be a point in 2 months, ten years or some point in the past, thus rendering the statement invalid and the Chancery incapable of acting upon it.
2) Termination of citizenship should be considered a serious event by the Chancery, while the Chancery is under no obligation to verify who posted the post, it is under the obligation to verify the intent of a statement if the statement is not crystal clear about its actions and await for this clarification before acting upon such statement. The statement posted was unclear, its actions and effects were vague and ambiguous, yet the Chancery took the assumption that the author meant to renounce his citizenship and took steps to terminate the citizenship of the author without first, ensuring beyond all doubt this was the intention of the statement and he was fully aware of the consequences of such statement. Denounce and Renounce are two separate things and it was outside the powers granted to the Chancery, both Organically and Statutorily, to presume there was a link between these two words, without clear instructions from the author that it wasn’t his intention to denounce his citizenship, but to renounce it. The Chancery acted inorganically by issuing a writ of termination without firstly receiving these facts.
It is therefore my argument that this declaration does not meet the conditions of Article XVIII, Section 9 of Talossan Organic Law and the Court as the custodian and guardian of citizenship rights and the Organic Law, must ensure that it is the clear intention of the citizen to revoke his citizenship and not the intention to simply denounce or protest his citizenship, for some reason. This case shows that a ambiguous post should not be interpreted as a renunciation without clarification and clear instructions being sought on the author’s true intentions. I therefore, urge the Honourable Justice of this Court to rule this termination of citizenship as InOrganic and restore the citizenship of of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir and all rights and entitlements of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir, be restored to good and proper standing and ask that a injunction against the Chancery and its agents from terminating the citizenship of S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir be granted until a written public declaration is issued by S:reu Réxhifjörd Taglheir in accordance with in Article XVIII: Section 9 is made.
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me,
Litz Cjantscheir
Plaintiff
The Magistracy finds that PM Cjantscheir, acting on behalf of His Majesty's government, has sufficient standing to bring this petition as it challenges the organicity of a government function.
Further, the Magistracy is satisfied that, as an inferior court of the realm, it holds adequate jurisdiction to rule in the matter.
This case having been assigned on 9/17/2011 by the Clerk of Courts, I hereby give Sir Iusti Canun, Secretary of State, or his delegated representative until October 21, 2011 to make his opening statement due to the General Election having commenced.
Furthermore, I will permit those who are not party to the case to fileamicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, provided copies be provided to the Clerk of Courts for appropriate record keeping. I will not correspond with any individual outside of this courtroom regarding this case, all correspondence to the court shall be made through the Clerk. These briefs shall express relevant legal opinion only and may or may not be considered in the final ruling.
Capt. T.M. Asmourescu
Magistrate